Morgan T Page
Morgan Page is a geophysicist in the Earthquake Science Center.
Science and Products
Filter Total Items: 44
Onset of aftershocks: Constraints on the Rate-and-State model Onset of aftershocks: Constraints on the Rate-and-State model
Aftershock rates typically decay with time t after the mainshock according to the Omori–Utsu law, R(t)=K(c+t)−p, with parameters K, c, and p. The rate‐and‐state (RS) model, which is currently the most popular physics‐based seismicity model, also predicts an Omori–Utsu decay with p = 1 and a c‐value that depends on the size of the coseismic stress change. Because the mainshock‐induced...
Authors
Sebastian Hainzl, Morgan T. Page, Nicholas van der Elst
Testing rate‐and‐state predictions of aftershock decay with distance Testing rate‐and‐state predictions of aftershock decay with distance
We analyze aftershocks of the 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest mainshock and isolated M 5–6 mainshocks in southern California to test predictions made by the rate‐and‐state friction model of Dieterich (1994). Rate‐and‐state friction predicts that the seismicity rate after a stress step follows Omori decay, where the Omori c‐value, which is the saturation in aftershock rate observed at small times...
Authors
Morgan T. Page, Nicholas van der Elst, Sebastian Hainzl
Developing, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts: Current practices and future directions Developing, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts: Current practices and future directions
While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision-making of civil protection, governmental agencies, or the public, Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems aim to provide...
Authors
Leila Mizrahi, Irina Dallo, Nicholas van der Elst, Annemarie Christophersen, Ilaria Spassiani, Maximillian J. Werner, Pablo Iturrieta, Jose Bayona, Iunio Iervolino, Max Schneider, Morgan T. Page, Jiancang Zhuang, Marcus Herrmann, Andrew J. Michael, Guiseppe Falcone, Warner Marzocchi, David A. Rhoades, Matthew Gerstenberger, Laura Gulia, Danijel Schorlemmer, Julia Becker, Marta Han, Lorena Kuratle, Michele Marti, Stefan Wiemer
Aftershock forecasting Aftershock forecasting
Aftershocks can compound the impacts of a major earthquake, disrupting recovery efforts and potentially further damaging weakened buildings and infrastructure. Forecasts of the probability of aftershocks can therefore aid decision-making during earthquake response and recovery. Several countries issue authoritative aftershock forecasts. Most aftershock forecasts are based on simple...
Authors
Jeanne L. Hardebeck, Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael, Morgan T. Page, Max Schneider, Nicholas van der Elst
The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications
The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard...
Authors
Mark D. Petersen, Allison Shumway, Peter M. Powers, Edward H. Field, Morgan P. Moschetti, Kishor S. Jaiswal, Kevin R. Milner, Sanaz Rezaeian, Arthur D. Frankel, Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael, Jason M. Altekruse, Sean Kamran Ahdi, Kyle Withers, Charles Mueller, Yuehua Zeng, Robert E. Chase, Leah M. Salditch, Nico Luco, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Julie A. Herrick, Demi Leafar Girot, Brad T. Aagaard, Adrian Bender, Michael L. Blanpied, Richard W. Briggs, Oliver S. Boyd, Brandon Clayton, Christopher DuRoss, Eileen L. Evans, Peter J. Haeussler, Alexandra Elise Hatem, Kirstie Lafon Haynie, Elizabeth H. Hearn, Kaj M. Johnson, Zachary Alan Kortum, N. Simon Kwong, Andrew James Makdisi, Henry Mason, Daniel McNamara, Devin McPhillips, P. Okubo, Morgan T. Page, Frederick Pollitz, Justin Rubinstein, Bruce E. Shaw, Zheng-Kang Shen, Brian Shiro, James Andrew Smith, William J. Stephenson, Eric M. Thompson, Jessica Ann Thompson Jobe, Erin A. Wirth, Robert C. Witter
The USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast The USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast
We present the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast for the conterminous United States, which gives authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time‐averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes throughout the region. In addition to updating virtually all model components, a major focus has been to provide a better representation...
Authors
Edward H. Field, Kevin R. Milner, Alexandra Elise Hatem, Peter M. Powers, Frederick Pollitz, Andrea L. Llenos, Yuehua Zeng, Kaj M. Johnson, Bruce E. Shaw, Devin McPhillips, Jessica Ann Thompson Jobe, Allison Shumway, Andrew J. Michael, Zheng-Kang Shen, Eileen L. Evans, Elizabeth H. Hearn, Charles Mueller, Arthur D. Frankel, Mark D. Petersen, Christopher DuRoss, Richard W. Briggs, Morgan T. Page, Justin Rubinstein, Julie A. Herrick
Science and Products
Filter Total Items: 44
Onset of aftershocks: Constraints on the Rate-and-State model Onset of aftershocks: Constraints on the Rate-and-State model
Aftershock rates typically decay with time t after the mainshock according to the Omori–Utsu law, R(t)=K(c+t)−p, with parameters K, c, and p. The rate‐and‐state (RS) model, which is currently the most popular physics‐based seismicity model, also predicts an Omori–Utsu decay with p = 1 and a c‐value that depends on the size of the coseismic stress change. Because the mainshock‐induced...
Authors
Sebastian Hainzl, Morgan T. Page, Nicholas van der Elst
Testing rate‐and‐state predictions of aftershock decay with distance Testing rate‐and‐state predictions of aftershock decay with distance
We analyze aftershocks of the 2019 M 7.1 Ridgecrest mainshock and isolated M 5–6 mainshocks in southern California to test predictions made by the rate‐and‐state friction model of Dieterich (1994). Rate‐and‐state friction predicts that the seismicity rate after a stress step follows Omori decay, where the Omori c‐value, which is the saturation in aftershock rate observed at small times...
Authors
Morgan T. Page, Nicholas van der Elst, Sebastian Hainzl
Developing, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts: Current practices and future directions Developing, testing, and communicating earthquake forecasts: Current practices and future directions
While deterministically predicting the time and location of earthquakes remains impossible, earthquake forecasting models can provide estimates of the probabilities of earthquakes occurring within some region over time. To enable informed decision-making of civil protection, governmental agencies, or the public, Operational Earthquake Forecasting (OEF) systems aim to provide...
Authors
Leila Mizrahi, Irina Dallo, Nicholas van der Elst, Annemarie Christophersen, Ilaria Spassiani, Maximillian J. Werner, Pablo Iturrieta, Jose Bayona, Iunio Iervolino, Max Schneider, Morgan T. Page, Jiancang Zhuang, Marcus Herrmann, Andrew J. Michael, Guiseppe Falcone, Warner Marzocchi, David A. Rhoades, Matthew Gerstenberger, Laura Gulia, Danijel Schorlemmer, Julia Becker, Marta Han, Lorena Kuratle, Michele Marti, Stefan Wiemer
Aftershock forecasting Aftershock forecasting
Aftershocks can compound the impacts of a major earthquake, disrupting recovery efforts and potentially further damaging weakened buildings and infrastructure. Forecasts of the probability of aftershocks can therefore aid decision-making during earthquake response and recovery. Several countries issue authoritative aftershock forecasts. Most aftershock forecasts are based on simple...
Authors
Jeanne L. Hardebeck, Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael, Morgan T. Page, Max Schneider, Nicholas van der Elst
The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications
The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard...
Authors
Mark D. Petersen, Allison Shumway, Peter M. Powers, Edward H. Field, Morgan P. Moschetti, Kishor S. Jaiswal, Kevin R. Milner, Sanaz Rezaeian, Arthur D. Frankel, Andrea L. Llenos, Andrew J. Michael, Jason M. Altekruse, Sean Kamran Ahdi, Kyle Withers, Charles Mueller, Yuehua Zeng, Robert E. Chase, Leah M. Salditch, Nico Luco, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Julie A. Herrick, Demi Leafar Girot, Brad T. Aagaard, Adrian Bender, Michael L. Blanpied, Richard W. Briggs, Oliver S. Boyd, Brandon Clayton, Christopher DuRoss, Eileen L. Evans, Peter J. Haeussler, Alexandra Elise Hatem, Kirstie Lafon Haynie, Elizabeth H. Hearn, Kaj M. Johnson, Zachary Alan Kortum, N. Simon Kwong, Andrew James Makdisi, Henry Mason, Daniel McNamara, Devin McPhillips, P. Okubo, Morgan T. Page, Frederick Pollitz, Justin Rubinstein, Bruce E. Shaw, Zheng-Kang Shen, Brian Shiro, James Andrew Smith, William J. Stephenson, Eric M. Thompson, Jessica Ann Thompson Jobe, Erin A. Wirth, Robert C. Witter
The USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast The USGS 2023 Conterminous U.S. time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast
We present the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey time‐independent earthquake rupture forecast for the conterminous United States, which gives authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time‐averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes throughout the region. In addition to updating virtually all model components, a major focus has been to provide a better representation...
Authors
Edward H. Field, Kevin R. Milner, Alexandra Elise Hatem, Peter M. Powers, Frederick Pollitz, Andrea L. Llenos, Yuehua Zeng, Kaj M. Johnson, Bruce E. Shaw, Devin McPhillips, Jessica Ann Thompson Jobe, Allison Shumway, Andrew J. Michael, Zheng-Kang Shen, Eileen L. Evans, Elizabeth H. Hearn, Charles Mueller, Arthur D. Frankel, Mark D. Petersen, Christopher DuRoss, Richard W. Briggs, Morgan T. Page, Justin Rubinstein, Julie A. Herrick